Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27 (2003), 162–173. Blackwell Publishing. Printed in the USA.

Copyright 
C 2003 Division 35, American Psychological Association. 0361-6843/03

DECISION TO LEAVE SCALE: PERCEIVED REASONS

TO STAY IN OR LEAVE VIOLENT RELATIONSHIPS

Helen M. Hendy, Doreen Eggen, Cheryl Gustitus, Kelli C. McLeod, and Phillip Ng
Penn State University, Schuylkill

The 30-item Decision to Leave Scale (DLS) was developed with 631 college women and 420 college women and women
in shelters. Seven DLS subscales emerged for concerns in deciding to stay or leave: Fear of Loneliness, Child Care
Needs, Financial Problems, Social Embarrassment, Poor Social Support, Fear of Harm, Hopes Things Change. Mean
internal reliability was .73, mean test-retest reliability was .70. Discriminant validity was demonstrated by expected
associations between DLS concerns and self-esteem, children, and violence. Criterion validity was demonstrated by
greater DLS concerns for women in shelters than for college women. Women in violent relationships who decided to
stay reported more Fear of Loneliness than women who decided to leave.

More than 20% of young women report that they have expe-
rienced some violence from romantic partners (Bergman,
1992; Jezl, Molidor, & Wright, 1996; Kasian & Painter,
1992). For more than 30% of those who experience it, the
violence may be severe enough to result in concussions or
the need for surgery (Cascardi & O’Leary, 1992). However,
even severe violence may go unrecognized and underre-
ported (Heyman & Schlee, 1997; Straus, Gelles, & Stein-
metz, 1980; Weingourt, 1996). For example, it has been
estimated that more than 30% of the women who come
to emergency rooms have been injured by their partners,
but only 10% of them are identified as abused (Coeling &
Harman, 1997). Women may be reluctant to reveal partner
Helen M. Hendy, Doreen Eggen, Cheryl Gustitus, Kelli C.
McLeod, and Phillip Ng, Psychology Program, Penn State Uni-
versity, Schuylkill.
The present research was supported in part by grants from
the School of Behavioral Sciences and Education, Office of Re-
search and Graduate Study, and Schuylkill Campus Advisory
Board of Penn State University, Capital College. Our consul-
tants included Rachelle Kucera-Mehra and Jo-Bard Addison of
Berks County Women in Crisis, PA, Susan Sentz, formerly of
Women’s Counseling Services of Berks, PA, Sarah Casey and Amy
Newton of Schuylkill County Women in Crisis, PA, and Mary
Kay Burns, formerly of Schuylkill County Children and Youth
Services, PA. We are also grateful for research assistance from
Jacqui Abrams, Meredith Ayers, Rosanne Chesakis, Angela
Dewald, Diane Evans, Caleb Heagy, Emily Lucas, Melissa
McGoey, Toni Dupont-Morales, Michael Wescott Loder, Lara
Piotrowski, Marianne Seiler, and Ann Snyder.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Helen M.
Hendy, Ph.D., Psychology Program, Penn State University,
Schuylkill Campus, 200 University Drive, Schuylkill Haven, PA,
17972. E-mail: hl4@psu.edu
violence for a number of reasons, including denial or un-
derestimation of risk, social embarrassment, mistrust of pro-
fessionals who ask them to report violence, feelings of guilt
for revealing relationship secrets, fear of increased violence
when partners learn that the violence has been reported
(Gortner, Berns, Jacobson, & Gottman, 1997; Green, 1998;
Martin et al., 2000; West, Kantor, & Jasinski, 1998). If di-
rect questions to women about relationship violence are of
such limited use, detection of violence may be enhanced
by the use of more indirect questions found significantly
associated with more anonymous reports of violence.
Existing qualitative research has been conducted with
lengthy interviews of women in violent relationships and
suggests that a woman’s decision to leave a violent rela-
tionship is a complex process, involving a number of stages
and influenced by a number of personal and situational fac-
tors (Campbell, Rose, Kub, & Nedd, 1998; Farrell, 1996;
Moss, Pitula, Campbell, & Halstead, 1997; Pilkington, 2000;
Rosen & Stith, 1995). However, quantitative examination
of the most consistent underlying dimensions of the per-
ceived reasons to stay in or leave a relationship can also
be useful to develop scales of specific questions that might
serve as a brief needs-assessment tool to direct women to
programs most relevant to their unique concerns. Such a
needs-assessment tool might be especially helpful when
women in violent relationships first, perhaps reluctantly,
reach out for assistance from their workplace supervisors,
educators, clergy members, health care providers, law en-
forcement officers, therapists, or hotline paraprofessionals.
Because of the potential for injury associated with it, the
decision to remain in a violent relationship may be consid-
ered a health behavior problem. As such, health promo-
tion theories that have been found useful in understanding

162
Decision to Leave
the decision process involved with other health behavior
problems may also be useful in understanding the deci-
sion to stay in or leave a violent relationship. For exam-
ple, the Transtheoretical Model developed to explain smok-
ing cessation may also apply to the decision to leave vio-
lence, with stages that include precontemplation, contem-
plation, taking action, decision reversal, and maintenance
of the behavior change (Daniels & Murphy, 1997; Lerner &
Kennedy, 2000; Peled, Eisikovits, Enosh, & Winstok, 2000;
Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992; Russell & Uh-
lemann, 1994). The stages of the Transtheoretical Model
suggest that an individual may need some time to contem-
plate the costs and benefits of staying in or leaving a violent
relationship, before actually “taking action” to leave. An-
other approach to the often-asked questions of “Why does
she stay?” in a violent relationship may be guided by the
Health Belief Model (Rosenstock, 1990), which suggests
that movement through such decisional stages depends on
specific “perceived benefits” and “perceived barriers” rele-
vant to the individual.
A number of theories have been developed to under-
stand such specific benefits and barriers for individuals fac-
ing the complex decision to stay in or leave a relationship,
with both personal and situational factors proposed to be at
work. For example, the Traumatic Bonding Theory empha-
sizes the powerful needs that individuals may have to main-
tain relationships that define their self-identity, even at great
cost (Frisch & MacKenzie, 1991; Green, 1998; Weingourt,
1996). Research support for the Traumatic Bonding The-
ory comes from the finding that women who have low self-
esteem, strong commitment to their partners, who blame
themselves for the violence, or who fear they will not find
another partner are more reluctant to leave violent relation-
ships (Bringle & Bagby, 1992; Cascardi & O’Leary, 1992;
Dutton & Painter, 1993; Frisch & MacKenzie, 1991; Green,
1998; Johnson, 1992; Katz, Arias, & Beach, 2000; Kwong,
Bartholomew, & Dutton, 1999; Langhinrichsen-Rohling,
Neidig, & Thorn, 1995; Rusbult & Martz, 1995; Sapping-
ton, Pharr, Tunstall, & Rickert, 1997; Truman-Schram,
Cann, Calhoun, & Vanwallendael, 2000). The decision to
leave violence may be even more difficult when individu-
als perceive that they have little social support from family
members and others (Barnett, 2001; Campbell, Sullivan, &
Davidson, 1995; Downs, Miller, Testa, & Panek, 1992;
Feldman, 1997; Giordano, 1998; Henderson, 1995;
Sappington et al., 1997; Wilson, 1997).
In addition, the Investment Theory and related theories
propose that situational factors associated with an evalua-
tion of costs and benefits of a violent relationship would
influence the final decision to leave (Choice & Lamke,
1997; Johnson, 1992; Kurdek, 1995; Rusbult & Martz, 1995;
Truman-Schram et al., 2000), with individuals more reluc-
tant to leave violent relationships when they have invest-
ments of time, marriage, money, children, or emotional
attachment. Research support for the Investment Theory
comes from the finding that women who are married, share
household expenses, or who feel strong emotional commit-
163
ments to their partners are less likely to make the deci-
sion to leave violent relationships (O’Keefe, 1997; Pate &
Hamilton, 1992; Rusbult & Martz, 1995; Strube, 1988;
Wayland, Roth, & Lochman, 1991). Sharing children with
the partner has also been found to be associated with a re-
luctance to leave a violent relationship (Butts-Stahly, 1999;
Coeling & Harman, 1997; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz,
1980), although concern for the safety of her children is
often the turning point in a woman’s decision to leave vi-
olence (Attala, Hudson, & McSweeney, 1994; Compton,
Michael, Krasavage-Hopkins, Schneiderman, & Bickman,
1989; Strube, 1988). Finally, when the cost of staying in the
relationship is being the recipient of frequent or severe vio-
lence, women are more likely to decide to leave (Dutton &
Painter, 1993; Pape & Arias, 2000; Rusbult & Martz, 1995).
In addition to the Traumatic Bonding Theory and the
Investment Theory, our consultants from four county-wide
human service agencies providing assistance to individuals
in violent relationships also proposed that the decision
to leave violence was complex and associated with both
personal and situational dimensions. From their years
of experience, personal dimensions they believed would
be related to the decision to leave included strong com-
mitment to the relationship, shame and self-blame, and
optimism for improvement. Situational dimensions they
believed would be related to the decision to leave included
childcare needs, financial concerns, availability of social
support, and risk of violence.
The purpose of the present study was to use theory, past
research, and the experience of our domestic violence con-
sultants to guide the development and psychometric exami-
nation of a Decision to Leave Scale (DLS) as a measurement
of specific concerns that women face when making the de-
cision to stay in or leave romantic relationships, particularly
violent relationships. We hypothesized that the underlying
concerns for the decision to leave would include both per-
sonal factors such as emotional attachment, self-image, and
optimism about improvement, as well as situational factors
such as childcare needs, finances, social support, and vio-
lence. Another goal of the present study was that the under-
lying concerns identified with the DLS might provide a brief
needs-assessment tool to be used by workplace supervisors,
educators, clergy members, health care providers, law en-
forcement personnel, therapists, hotline paraprofessionals,
or others who seek to direct women to programs and profes-
sionals most relevant to their unique concerns as they make
the complex decision to stay in or leave violent relationships.
METHOD
Overview
To develop the items for possible inclusion on the Deci-
sion to Leave Scale (DLS), 40 items were chosen from fac-
tors suggested by theory and past research to be associated
with the decision to stay in or leave a romantic relation-
ship, as reviewed above. To enhance their ecological validity,
items were also developed in consultation with treatment
164
directors from four county-wide community agencies that
provide assistance for individuals in violent relationships for
both urban and rural residents of eastern Pennsylvania. (See
Table 1.) To identify underlying dimensions of concern to
women in making the decision to stay in or leave a relation-
ship, the 40 original items from the DLS were subjected to
both an exploratory factor analysis with Sample 1 (656 col-
lege women), and a confirmatory factor analysis with Sam-
ple 2 (430 college women and community women in crisis
shelters). Subscales for the DLS were then formed from
items with consistently high factor loadings in both samples.
To enhance their statistical power, psychometric exam-
inations of the DLS subscales were conducted wherever
possible with a combined sample of participants from Sam-
ples 1 and 2. Also, to enhance their ecological validity and
possible application as a needs-assessment tool for women
in violent relationships, psychometric examination of the
DLS subscales always included a focus on women partic-
ipants who reported receiving violence from their present
partners. Internal reliability for the DLS subscales was mea-
sured with Cronbach’s alpha calculated for the items within
each subscale, using the combined sample of participants
from Samples 1 and 2. Test-retest reliability for each DLS
subscale was measured by calculating Pearson correlation
coefficients for scores provided on two occasions one to
three weeks apart, which was available only for partici-
pants from Sample 2. Discriminant validity for each DLS
subscale was evaluated using stepwise multiple regression
with the combined sample to examine whether the sub-
scale score was associated with personal and situational
variables as expected from theory, past research, and our
domestic violence consultants (including self-esteem, rela-
tionship duration, children, family social support, and vio-
lence from the present partner). Criterion validity for each
DLS subscale was evaluated using a one-way ANOVA with
the combined sample to examine whether expected differ-
ences were found in DLS concerns reported by women
with three levels of experience and risk for violence: col-
lege women who had “never” experienced violence from
the present partner, college women who had experienced
violence at least “once or twice” from the present part-
ner, and women in community crisis shelters for victims
of domestic violence. Finally, to provide a partial answer to
the often-asked question of, “Why does she stay?,” partic-
ipants from the combined sample who reported violence
from their partners were used in t tests to compare the spe-
cific DLS concerns for women who decided to stay, and for
those who decided to leave.
Sample 1: College Women
Recruitment of Participants
Participants were undergraduate students recruited from
three campuses of Penn State University. Classes from a va-
riety of disciplines were sampled (e.g., business, chemistry,
criminal justice, economics, English, geology, German, his-
tory, kinesiology, mathematics, music, nursing, psychology,
HENDY ET AL.
theater). Three recruitment procedures were used. For 35
classes in which instructors could allow use of class time,
recruitment of participants and completion of the question-
naire were both conducted during class time and produced
a response rate of 94%. For 16 classes in which instructors
could not allow use of class time, recruitment of participants
was conducted during class, questionnaires were completed
outside of class and dropped off later in designated drop box
locations on campus, with a response rate of 70%. Finally, as
part of the participant pool procedure required at the cen-
tral University Park location, posters were prepared that
described the study, and interested students used a website
to make an appointment for one of 14 meetings where they
completed the questionnaires, with a response rate of 85%.
For all recruitment methods, the study was described to par-
ticipants as an investigation into predictors of the quality of
romantic relationships in college students. After completing
the anonymous questionnaires, participants sealed them in
envelopes, dropped the envelopes into a large covered box,
and selected a small thank-you gift (e.g., gum, candy, chips,
pens).
Across all three campus locations, 1,014 students re-
turned questionnaires (343 men, 671 women). Responses
from students in the first classroom of 34 participants (19
men, 15 women) were used as pilot questionnaires to see if
participants appeared to understand and complete all parts
of the questionnaire. Although data were collected on both
women and men, only data from the women are included
in the present report. Of the remaining 980 participants,
656 were women (mean age = 21.6 [SD = 5.9]; 80.1%
Caucasian, 9.5% African American, 3.2% Asian American,
3.1% Hispanic). Also, the mean relationship duration in
months was 33.6 (SD = 57.7); the mean number of children
was 0.2 (SD = 0.7); 13.6% of participants were married or
shared a household with their partner; their mean number
of hours of employment per week was 12.5 (SD = 12.7);
and 100% of them had some college education.
Procedure
The anonymous questionnaire asked participants to provide
demographic information including age, ethnicity, marital
status, and children. Participants were also asked to report
whether they were now involved in a romantic relationship,
how long they had been in the relationship in months (or
years), and “right now, what is your decision about the fu-
ture of your current romantic relationship?” (1 = stay, 2 =
leave, 3 = don’t know). Responses of “don’t know” were
later combined with responses of “stay.”
Participants were presented with the 40 original items
from the DLS in a randomly selected order as shown in
Table 1. Participants were asked to “rate how important
each factor is when making your decision to stay in or
leave a relationship. Use a five-point scale from 1 = not
at all important to 5 = very important, or X = not applica-
ble.” Responses of “not applicable” were later recoded as 1.
Participants were asked to respond to the DLS items con-
Decision to Leave 165

Table 1
Exploratory Factor Analysis with Sample 1 (631 College Women), Using 40 Original DLS Items, Varimax Rotation,
Showing 30 Items with Loadings of .40+ on the Same Seven Factors as Confirmatory Factor Analysis with Sample 2
Poor Fear Hopes
Fear of Childcare Financial Social Social of Things
Item Loneliness Needs Problems Embarr. Support Harm Change

13 I would miss having somebody .81

with whom to do things
24 I would miss the affection .78
11 I would miss him/her .74
5 I fear loneliness .60
19 I believe this is the best .56
relationship I can get
18 I would miss sex .50
39 I fear I would not find .49
another partner
20 I would lose the protection .47
provided by my partner
4 I believe my children need .80
their other parent
15 I would lose my partner’s help .79
with the children
16 I fear loss of income .76
9 I fear loss of custody of my children .72
17 I fear legal proceedings .71
14 I believe the needs of my family .49
are more important than mine
22 I fear being homeless .71
35 I do not have an attorney .57
12 I would lose transportation, .50
mobility
40 I fear loss of health benefits .46
27 I am too embarrassed to tell .68
anybody
2 I fear what people would say .60
32 I fear that nobody would believe me .54
25 I fear making my own decisions .48
7 I have little support from my friends .76
8 I have little support from community .63
agencies
33 I have little support from my family .54
3 I fear harm to myself .82
10 I fear harm to my family .78
28 I fear harm to my pets .50
37 I believe he/she loves me and .76
wants to change
29 I love him/her and believe I can .75
change him/her
1 I believe problems occur in most relationships
6 I made a commitment to this relationship
21 I wonder if I am crazy
23 I do not know how to leave
26 I wonder if the problems are my fault
30 I have religious convictions that demand I stay
31 I would lose self-esteem
34 I would not know who I am if I am not in this relationship
36 I fear loss of other relationships (in-laws, mutual friends, etc.)
38 I would lose my partner’s help with household tasks
166
cerning the present romantic partner, or the past romantic
partner if they did not have a present partner, or to leave
them blank if they had no partner about whom to report.
The questionnaire also included questions designed to
measure a number of personal and situational variables that
would be used to evaluate the discriminant validity of the
DLS subscales because of theory and past research suggest-
ing their relationships with the decision to leave process.
These variables included self-esteem, relationship duration
in months, number of children, violence received from the
present partner, and social support from the family. Self-
esteem was measured with the 10-item Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), with participants asked
to rate each item with a four-point scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), with numerical re-
sponses reversed for appropriate items and the sum of item
responses then used as each participant’s score. Violence
from the partner was measured using the eight-item vio-
lence subscale of the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, Gelles,
& Steinmetz, 1980), with participants asked to rate the fre-
quency of each behavioral item using a three-point fre-
quency scale (1 = never, 2 = once or twice, 3 = many times)
and with the sum of the eight ratings then serving as each
participant’s score. The eight behavioral items included the
following: threw something at the other person, pushed or
grabbed or shoved the other person, slapped the other per-
son, kicked or bit or hit with the fist, hit or tried to hit with
something, beat the other person, threatened with a knife
or gun, used a knife or gun. Social support from family was
measured with the 20-item subscale from the Social Sup-
port from Family and Friends Scale (Procidano & Heller,
1983), with participants asked to check items that were true
for them and with a tally of item responses indicating family
support then serving as each participant’s score.
Sample 2: College Women and Community Women
in Crisis Shelters
Recruitment of Participants
Participants included 430 college and community women,
including 347 college women from two campuses of Penn
State University and 83 community women from two crisis
shelters for victims of domestic violence from both urban
and rural counties (mean age = 24.5 [SD = 8.6]; 68.4%
Caucasian, 17.8% African American, 3.0% Asian American,
5.2% Hispanic). Also, the mean relationship duration in
months was 46.8 (SD = 71.7); 24.8% of them were married
or shared a household with their partner; the mean number
of children was 0.8 (SD = 1.3); their mean number of hours
of employment per week was 18.5 (SD = 15.1); and 4.7%
had no high school degree, 16.8% had a high school degree,
72.0% had some college, and 6.5% had a baccalaureate or
higher degree.
The college women were recruited in 25 classes from a
variety of disciplines, with a response rate of 97%. To obtain
a sample of college women that was independent of Sample
HENDY ET AL.
1, recruitment for Sample 2 was conducted one year after
recruitment for Sample 1; similar classes were sampled to
reduce the probability of approaching the same students,
and students were asked to refrain from completing the
questionnaire if they had already participated. To keep their
questionnaire responses anonymous, but to permit calcula-
tion of test-retest reliability, students were asked to identify
themselves only with a four-digit code of their choice. When
the research team returned to their class one to three weeks
later, they were asked to use the same four-digit code so that
their two questionnaires could be matched. Students de-
posited their completed questionnaires into a closed box.
To thank them for their participation, they were given a
newly minted “gold” dollar coin.
The community women were recruited with the as-
sistance of counselors and administrators from the crisis
shelters, with a response rate of 51%. As with the college
women, participants identified themselves only with a four-
digit code of their choice, then sealed their completed ques-
tionnaires into envelopes provided, and were given a newly
minted “gold” dollar coin to thank them for their participa-
tion. Because the timing of their return to the crisis shelter
was uncertain, the community women participants com-
pleted the questionnaire only on one occasion.
Procedure
As in Sample 1, the anonymous questionnaire asked partic-
ipants to provide demographic information including age,
ethnicity, marital status, children, whether they were now
involved in a romantic relationship, and their present deci-
sion to stay in or leave that relationship. Participants were
also presented with the 40 original items of the DLS, with
the same instructions as those given participants in Sample
1, and also asked to rate each item for “how important is
each factor when making your decision to stay in or leave
a relationship,” using a five-point scale ranging from 1 (not
at all important or not applicable) to 5 (very important).
Measures also gathered the same personal and situational
variables as in Sample 1, including self-esteem, relationship
duration in months, number of children, violence received
from present partner, and social support from family.
RESULTS
Exploratory Factor Analysis
The underlying dimensions for the reasons women decide
to stay in or leave a romantic relationship were examined for
the college women in Sample 1. This initial factor analysis
used varimax rotation, considered the 40 original items of
the DLS, and selected only factors that emerged with at
least three items loading .40 or higher. Of the 656 women
in Sample 1, 631 women completed all items of the scale as
required for inclusion in the analysis. Seven factors emerged
for the concerns women report when making the decision to
stay in or leave a relationship: Fear of Loneliness, Childcare
Decision to Leave 167

Table 2
Confirmatory Factor Analysis with Sample 2 (420 College Women and Women in Shelters), Using 40 Original
DLS Items, Varimax Rotation, Showing 30 Items with Loadings of .40+ on Same Seven Factors as Exploratory Factor
Analysis with Sample 1
Poor Fear Hopes
Fear of Childcare Financial Social Social of Things
Item Loneliness Needs Problems Embarr. Support Harm Change

I would miss having somebody with .74

whom to do things
I would miss the affection .70
I would miss him/her .67
I fear loneliness .61
I believe this is the best .42
relationship I can get
I would miss sex .62
I fear I would not find another partner .53
I would lose the protection provided .41
by my partner
I believe my children need .78
their other parent
I would lose my partner’s help .66
with the children
I fear loss of income .43
I fear loss of custody of my .63
children
I fear legal proceedings .42
I believe the needs of my family .61
are more important than mine
I fear being homeless .57
I do not have an attorney .60
I would lose transportation, mobility .52
I fear loss of health benefits .66
I am too embarrassed to tell anybody .67
I fear what people would say .45
I fear that nobody would believe me .62
I fear making my own decisions .74
I have little support from my friends .73
I have little support from community .69
agencies
I have little support from my family .48
I fear harm to myself .78
I fear harm to my family .75
I fear harm to my pets .61
I believe he/she loves me and .68
wants to change
I love him/her and believe .59
I can change him/her

Needs, Financial Problems, Social Embarrassment, Poor
Social Support, Fear of Harm, and Hopes Things Change.
(See Table 1.)
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted for the college
women and community women in crisis shelters of Sample
2. (See Table 2.) The factor analysis again used varimax rota-
tion and again considered the 40 original items of the DLS in
order to compare the factor structure produced to that pro-
duced by the exploratory factor analysis of Sample 1, and to
select items for inclusion in the final version of the DLS. (Of
the 430 women in Sample 2, 420 women completed all items
of the scale as required for inclusion in the analysis, includ-
ing 342 college women and 78 community women in crisis
shelters.) Seven factors emerged from the factor analysis of
Sample 2 that were similar to those produced by the factor
analysis on Sample 1. Of the 40 original DLS scale items,
168
30 items that demonstrated consistently high loadings for
similar factors in the exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses were selected to make up subscales for types of
concerns women may have when making the decision to
stay in or leave a relationship: Fear of Loneliness (eight
items), Childcare Needs (six items), Financial Problems
(four items), Social Embarrassment (four items), Poor
Social Support (three items), Fear of Harm (three items),
and Hopes Things Change (two items). A woman’s score
for each subscale was then calculated as the sum of her
ratings for items within that subscale, using the five-point
scale she used to indicate the importance of each item in
making her decision to stay in or leave the relationship
(ranging from 1 = not at all important or not applicable to
5 = very important).
Internal Reliability
Internal reliability measures for each DLS subscale were
calculated with Cronbach’s alphas for all 1,051 participants
combined from Samples 1 and 2. Cronbach’s alpha was.82
for Fear of Loneliness, .84 for Childcare Needs, .69 for
Financial Problems, .71 for Social Embarrassment, .63 for
Poor Social Support, .71 for Fear of Harm, and .70 for
Hopes Things Change. The mean internal reliability for
the seven DLS subscales was .73
To determine internal reliability of the DLS subscales
for women in violent relationships, the above calculations
were repeated for the 196 women from Samples 1 and 2
who reported receiving violence from their present partner
at least “once or twice” on any of the eight behavioral items
from the violence subscale of the Conflict Tactics Scale.1 In-
ternal reliability scores for these women reporting violence
from present partners were .85 for Fear of Loneliness, .85
for Childcare Needs, .72 for Financial Problems, .68 for
Social Embarrassment, .60 for Poor Social Support, .73 for
Fear of Harm, and .64 for Hopes Things Change. The mean
internal reliability for the seven DLS subscales for women
reporting violence was .72.
Test-Retest Reliability
Test-retest reliability was examined for each DLS subscale
score for college women from Sample 2 who completed the
questionnaire on two occasions one to three weeks apart
(n = 221) and who had remained in the same relationship
across that time (n = 94). Pearson correlation coefficients
were calculated between scores produced at the first and
second administration of the questionnaire and found to
be .85 for Fear of Loneliness ( p < .001), .78 for Childcare
Needs (p < .001), .57 for Financial Problems ( p < .001), .68
for Social Embarrassment ( p < .001), .63 for Poor Social
Support ( p < .001), .82 for Fear of Harm (p < .001), and .55
for Hopes Things Change ( p < .003). The mean test-retest
reliability for the seven DLS subscales was .70.
To determine test-retest reliability of the DLS subscales
for women in violent relationships, the above calculations
HENDY ET AL.
were repeated only for the 21 women who were in the same
relationship for the two occasions they completed the ques-
tionnaire, and who had reported on the first occasion that
they received violence from the partner at least “once or
twice” for any of the eight behavioral items from the Con-
flict Tactics Scale. Their test-retest correlations were .91
for Fear of Loneliness ( p < .001), .87 for Childcare Needs
( p < .000), .47 for Financial Problems ( p < .04), .71 for So-
cial Embarrassment ( p < .001), .55 for Poor Social Support
(p < .01), .93 for Fear of Harm (p < .001), and .41 for Hopes
Things Change ( p < .07). The mean test-retest reliability for
the seven DLS subscales for women in violent relationships
was .69.
Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity for each DLS subscale was evaluated
with stepwise multiple regression that examined the sub-
scale’s relationship with a set of personal and situational
variables expected from theory, past research, and our con-
sultants to be associated with the decision to leave process.
These variables included self-esteem, relationship duration,
number of children, social support from family, and violence
from the present partner. Such a multiple regression anal-
ysis was chosen because it allowed identification of which
of the possibly inter-correlated predictor variables could
explain a unique portion of the variance in each DLS con-
cern. To make the examination of discriminant validity for
the DLS concerns particularly relevant to women who had
experienced violence, the multiple regression analyses were
conducted only for the 196 women from Samples 1 and 2
who reported receiving violence from their present partner
at least “once or twice” for any of the eight behavioral items
of the Conflict Tactics Scale. For 34.7% of these women, if
violence was received “once or twice” from the partner, it
was also received “many times.”2
From Traumatic Bonding Theory it was anticipated that
women with low self-esteem or little family support would
report significantly more of the concerns about social re-
lationships measured with the DLS dimensions of Fear of
Loneliness, Social Embarrassment, Poor Social Support,
and Hopes Things Change with their partners. From In-
vestment Theory it was anticipated that women with greater
investments in relationship duration or children would re-
port significantly more of the practical concerns measured
with Childcare Needs and Financial Problems. From In-
vestment Theory it was also expected that when the cost of
violence from their partners was high, women would report
significantly more Fear of Harm.
As expected from Traumatic Bonding Theory, low
self-esteem explained a significant portion of the vari-
ance in DLS concerns that women reported about Fear
of Loneliness (beta = −.18, t = 2.52, d f = 187, p < .02),
Social Embarrassment (beta = −.41, t = 6.26, d f = 187,
p < .001), Poor Social Support (beta = −.14, t = 2.03,
d f = 187, p < .05), and marginally that Hopes Things
Decision to Leave
Change (beta = −.14, t = 1.89, d f = 188, p < .07). As ex-
pected from Investment Theory, the investment of chil-
dren accounted for a significant portion of the variance
in DLS concerns women reported about Childcare Needs
(beta = .51, t = 8.21, d f = 189, p < .001) and Financial
Problems (beta = .36, t = 5.26, d f = 189, p < .001). Also
as expected from Investment Theory, the relationship cost
of frequent violence explained a significant portion of the
variance that women reported in Fear of Harm (beta = .14,
t = 1.98, d f = 189, p < .05). Relationship duration and fam-
ily support as measured in the present study were not sig-
nificantly associated with any of the seven DLS concerns
once self-esteem, children, and violence were in the multi-
ple regression equation.
Criterion Validity
Criterion validity for each DLS subscale was evaluated us-
ing a one-way ANOVA with all participants from Samples
1 and 2 to examine whether, as expected, significant dif-
ferences were found in DLS concerns reported by three
groups of women who vary in their experience and risk for
violence: college women who reported “never” receiving
violence from their present partners on any of the eight
behavioral items from the violence subscale of the Conflict
Tactics Scale (n = 510); college women who reported that
they had received violence from their partner at least “once
or twice” on any of the eight behavioral items (n = 167); and
women who were in community crisis shelters to protect
them from partner violence (n = 83). It was anticipated that
women in shelters would report significantly more concerns
about Fear of Harm, Childcare Needs, Financial Problems,
complaints about Poor Social Support, and Social Embar-
rassment at needing to turn to a community crisis shelter
to deal with these concerns. However, because women in
shelters had crossed the decision threshold to “take action”
to leave violence, it was expected that they would report
significantly less Fear of Loneliness at the thought of leav-
ing the violent partner, with fewer remaining Hopes Things
Change for the better with the partner.
As expected, women in three levels of risk for violence re-
ported significantly different concerns about Fear of Harm
(F[2,739] = 6.41, p < .003), with women in crisis shelters
reporting more concern than either college women with or
without experience of partner violence (t = 3.20, d f = 240,
p < .003; t = 3.53, d f = 576, p < .001; respectively). Also
as expected, women in the three groups differed on con-
cerns about Childcare Needs (F [2,739] = 29.36, p < .001),
again with women in shelters reporting more concern than
either college women with or without violence (t = 5.52,
d f = 240, p < .001; t = 7.85, d f = 576, p < .001; respec-
tively). Groups differed in concerns about Financial Prob-
lems (F [2,739] = 51.25, p < .001), with women in shelters
reporting more concern than either college women with or
without violence (t = 6.15, d f = 240, p < .001; t = 10.18,
d f = 576, p < .001; respectively). Groups differed in com-
169
plaints about Poor Social Support (F [2,739] = 59.65,
p < .001), with women in shelters reporting more com-
plaints than either college women with or without vio-
lence (t = 8.47, d f = 240, p < .001; t = 10.65, d f = 576,
p < .001; respectively). Groups differed on concerns about
Social Embarrassment (F [2,739] = 82.58, p < .001), with
women in shelters reporting more concern than either col-
lege women with or without violence (t = 7.28, d f = 240,
p < .001; t = 12.83, d f = 576, p < .001; respectively). Also
as expected, the three groups differed in Fear of Loneli-
ness (F [2,739] = 3.77, p < .03), with women in crisis shel-
ters reporting less fear of being without the partner than
did either college women with or without violence (t = 2.45,
df = 240, p < .02; t = 1.79, df = 576, p < .08). However, al-
though the groups differed significantly in Hopes Things
Change (F[2,739] = 4.25, p < .02), women in crisis shelters
did not differ significantly from college women either with
or without the experience of violence. The only significant
difference between college women with and without the
experience of violence was that college women with vio-
lence reported significantly more Social Embarrassment
(t = 3.43, d f = 662, p < .002) and Hopes Things Change
(t = 2.97, d f = 662, p < .004).
“Why Does She Stay?”
Finally, the DLS subscales were used to approach the ques-
tion of “Why does she stay?” by identifying concerns that
appeared to be the most important perceived barriers for
women facing the decision to stay in or leave a violent re-
lationship. For 196 participants from Samples 1 and 2 who
reported receiving violence from the present partner at least
“once or twice” on any Conflict Tactics Scale items, t tests
compared DLS subscale scores for those reporting the de-
cision to stay in the relationship (n = 166), and for those
reporting the decision to leave (n = 30, or 15.3%). As men-
tioned earlier, if violence was received “once or twice” it was
also received “many times” for 34.7% of these 196 women.
No information was available about whether women who
reported that they would leave actually did so.
The decision to leave was associated with greater
Fear of Harm (t = 2.12, d f = 189, p < .04), Childcare
Needs (t = 2.75, d f = 189, p < .008), Poor Social Sup-
port (t = 3.82, d f = 189, p < .001), and marginally more
concerns about Financial Problems (t = 1.91, d f = 189,
p < .06). The decision to stay was associated with greater
Fear of Loneliness (t = 2.23, d f = 189, p < .003). Hopes
Things Change did not differ significantly between women
who had experienced partner violence and decided to leave
or those who decided to stay in the relationship (t = .88,
d f = 189, p < .38).
DISCUSSION
The 30-item Decision to Leave Scale (DLS) revealed
a consistent factor structure with seven subscales for
170
perceived reasons to stay in or leave a relationship: Fear of
Loneliness, Childcare Needs, Financial Problems, Social
Embarrassment, Poor Social Support, Fear of Harm, and
Hopes Things Change. Internal reliability scores for the
seven DLS subscales ranged from .63 to .84, with a mean
of .73. Test-retest reliability scores ranged from .55 to .85,
with a mean of .70. These results suggest that the Traumatic
Bonding Theory (Frisch & MacKenzie, 1991; Green, 1998;
Weingourt, 1996) and the Investment Theory (Choice &
Lamke, 1997; Johnson, 1992; Kurdek, 1995; Rusbult &
Martz, 1995; Truman-Schram et al., 2000) provided useful
guides to identification of the underlying concerns that
women face when making the decision to stay in or leave
a violent relationship. As suggested by Traumatic Bonding
Theory, concerns about social relationships important
to the individual appeared in the DLS dimensions that
emerged for Fear of Loneliness, Social Embarrassment,
Poor Social Support, and Hopes Things Change for the
better with the present partner. As suggested by Investment
Theory, concerns about investments and risks importance
to the individual appeared in the DLS dimensions that
emerged for Childcare Needs, Financial Problems, and
Fear of Harm. Similarly, our domestic violence consultants
had also proposed that the most important concerns for
women in violent relationships would include commitment
to the relationship, childcare needs, financial difficulties,
risk of violence, shame and self-blame, availability of social
support, and optimism for improvement.
Discriminant validity for the DLS subscales was demon-
strated by their expected associations with personal and sit-
uational factors such as self-esteem, children, and violence
that have been found in past research to be associated with
reluctance to leave violent relationships. For example, low
self-esteem has been found in past research to be associ-
ated with greater reluctance to leave violent relationships
(Cascardi & O’Leary, 1992; Katz et al., 2000; Sappington
et al., 1997), and women in the present study with low self-
esteem also reported more concerns about leaving their
violent relationships because of Fear of Loneliness, Poor
Social Support, Social Embarrassment, and Hopes Things
Change. In addition, the number of children has been found
in past research to be associated with greater reluctance
to leave violent relationships (Butts-Stahly, 1999; Coeling
& Harman, 1997; Straus et al., 1980), and women in the
present study with children also reported more concerns
about leaving their violent relationships because of Child-
care Needs, Financial Problems, and Poor Social Support.
Finally, past research has found the risk of extreme vio-
lence to be associated with more thoughts of leaving but
greater fear at doing so (Dutton & Painter, 1993; Pape &
Arias, 2000; Rusbult & Martz, 1995), and women in the
present study with more frequent violence from partners
also reported more concerns about leaving because of Fear
of Harm.
However, discriminant analyses in the present study
found no significant relationship between any of the DLS
HENDY ET AL.
subscales and relationship duration or family support, un-
like past research results that greater reluctance to make
the decision to leave a violent relationship is found for
women who have made a greater “investment” in relation-
ship duration (Pate & Hamilton, 1992; Rusbult & Martz,
1995; Strube, 1988), and for women who have little sup-
port from other family members (Barnett, 2001; Campbell
et al., 1995; Downs et al., 1992; Feldman, 1997; Giordano,
1998; Henderson, 1995; Sappington et al., 1997; Wilson,
1997). Perhaps relationship duration and family support
were not found to be associated with DLS concerns because
of limitations with their measurement in the present study.
For example, measuring relationship duration in months
produced an extremely skewed distribution of scores on
this measure for study participants who included both
young and unmarried college students as well as middle-
aged and long-married community women. However, even
when the measure of relationship duration was truncated at
36 months, all of the above multiple regression analyses
used to evaluate discriminant validity revealed the same
pattern of results, suggesting that “investment” of time in
a relationship may be less associated with the decision-to-
leave process than is “investment” in children. Also, because
the items on the family support scale used in the present
study did not specify which family members that partici-
pants were to describe (Procidano & Heller, 1983), partici-
pants may have reported supportiveness not only from fam-
ily members such as parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles,
cousins, siblings, and even children, but also from the part-
ner. By confounding family support and partner support,
the measure may have been unable to detect the significant
relationships found in past research between family sup-
port and the decision to leave process. Therefore, failure to
find the expected associations between DLS concerns and
relationship duration and family support appears due more
to problems with the measurement of these two predictor
variables, rather than to problems with the discriminant va-
lidity of the DLS subscales, which demonstrated expected
associations with all other predictor variables considered
from past research.
Criterion validity for DLS subscales was supported with
the expected result that women in crisis shelters reported
significantly more concerns about Childcare Needs, Finan-
cial Problems, Social Embarrassment, Poor Social Support,
and Fear of Harm than college women with or without
experience of violence from present partners. In contrast,
for college women with or without violence, the only sig-
nificant difference in DLS concerns was that those with
violence understandably reported more Social Embarrass-
ment and Hopes Things Change. The pattern of these re-
sults allows an interpretation of whether decision to leave
concerns change in a quantitative manner from conditions
of no-violence to violence-once-or-twice to violence-from-
which-shelter-is-needed, or whether a qualitative change
in concerns occurs at some point, as expected from a
stage theory such as the Transtheoretical Model of health
Decision to Leave
behavior change (Daniels & Murphy, 1997; Lerner &
Kennedy, 2000; Peled et al., 2000; Prochaska et al., 1992;
Russell & Uhlemann, 1994). Six of the seven DLS concerns
were found to differ between women in shelters and college
women with violence, whereas only two of the seven DLS
concerns were found to differ between college women with
and without violence. The pattern of these results suggests
that DLS concerns do not simply increase quantitatively
from nonviolent relationships, to violent relationships, to
relationships with such violence that shelter is needed. In-
stead, the pattern suggests that a qualitative change oc-
curs in concerns once violence is severe enough to require
shelter, with concerns about Childcare Needs, Financial
Problems, Social Embarrassment, Poor Social Support, and
Fear of Harm leaping into prominence. According to the
Transtheoretical Model, such qualitative changes in con-
cerns would indicate a shift out of the stage of “contem-
plation” and into the stage of “taking action” to leave the
violent relationship.
The Transtheoretical Model and the Health Belief
Model (Rosenstock, 1990) may also be useful to guide in-
terpretation of the results for DLS concerns associated with
the question of “Why does she stay?” in a violent relation-
ship. For example, women who had experienced partner vi-
olence and decided to leave reported more concerns about
Childcare Needs, Financial Problems, Poor Social Support,
and Fear of Harm. Because data from the present question-
naire study can only provide information about associations
between variables rather than cause/effect relationships, it
cannot be determined whether the increases in Childcare
Needs, Poor Social Support, Social Embarrassment, and
Fear of Harm reported by these women represented causes
or consequences of their decision to leave. Nevertheless,
according to the Transtheoretical Model, their responses
help to identify the specific types of concerns being evalu-
ated by women in the “contemplation” stage and just before
the stage of “taking action” to leave violence. In contrast, for
women who had experienced partner violence and decided
to stay reported more concerns about Fear of Loneliness,
which the Health Belief Model might interpret as identi-
fying a particularly powerful “perceived barrier” that must
be overcome by women in violent relationships before they
make the decision to leave. With its proposal that decision
reversal is an expected stage in the process of changing any
health-related behavior, the Transtheoretical Model might
also interpret Fear of Loneliness as a powerful trigger for
reinvolvement in violent relationships.
Of all seven DLS dimensions, Hopes Things Change
appeared to be the most universal concern by women par-
ticipants in the present study. For example, in the criterion
validity evaluation that compared women in three groups
of experience and risk for violence, Hopes Things Change
was the only DLS dimension for which women in crisis
shelters did not differ significantly from other women with
or without the experience of violence. Also, Hopes Things
Change was the only DLS dimension for which no signifi-
cant differences were found between women who had ex-
171
perienced partner violence and decided to stay, and those
who decided to leave. Therefore, it appears that both Fear
of Loneliness and Hopes Things Change could be viewed
as “perceived barriers” to leaving violence according to the
Health Belief Model, and as triggers for reinvolvement
in violent relationships according to the Transtheoretical
Model.
To enhance the potential application of the DLS as a
needs-assessment tool for women in violent relationships,
the present study focused on samples of women who re-
ported partner violence when conducting examinations of
the psychometric properties of the DLS subscales. Applica-
tion of the DLS subscales as a needs-assessment tool could
be used by human service agencies and others (educators,
clergy, health care providers, law enforcement personnel,
hotline paraprofessionals) who strive to direct women in
violent relationships to programs and professionals relevant
to their unique concerns as they approach the complex
decision to stay in or leave their relationships. For example,
women with high scores for Childcare Needs could be
directed to day care services, big brother/sister programs,
child counselors, or child custody attorneys. Women with
many Financial Problems such as housing, transportation,
medical coverage, or lack of legal representation could be
directed to government-funded housing programs, real
estate agencies, public transportation services, car pools,
continuing education programs, employment agencies,
low-cost health clinics, or legal services. Women with
high scores for Fear of Loneliness, Social Embarrassment,
and Hopes Things Change might be directed to peer
support groups, parents without partners programs, dating
services, or marriage counseling. Because results from the
present study suggest these last DLS concerns are strongly
associated with low self-esteem, women with high scores
on these subscales might also benefit from individual coun-
seling programs to improve their perceptions of self-worth.
Women with complaints about Poor Social Support could
be directed to family counseling programs or peer support
groups. Women with high scores for Fear of Harm could
be directed to programs for self-defense, buddy programs,
legal services for court-ordered protection from abuse, or
emergency crisis shelters.
A limitation of the present study is that the psychometric
examinations for the new Decision to Leave Scale were con-
ducted primarily on samples of college women, who made
up 92.4% of those sampled. The present study also includes
limited age, ethnic, sexual orientation, and regional diversity
in its sample, which was mostly young, Caucasian, hetero-
sexual women from Pennsylvania. Especially because eth-
nic differences have been found for the decision process
of leaving a violent relationship (Moss et al., 1997; West
et al., 1998), future research should consider whether pat-
terns found in the present results can be replicated with a
more ethnically diverse sample of women. Also, recent re-
search suggests that men experience partner violence with
a frequency similar to that of women, but with reduced
fear and risk of injury (Hendy, Weiner, Bakerofskie, Eggen,
172
Gustitus, & McLeod, in press; Magdol et al., 1997; Vivian
& Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1994). To consider whether the
DLS might be gender-specific in its usefulness as a needs-
assessment tool, future research should therefore evaluate
whether men show similar underlying dimensions for the
perceived reasons to stay in or leave a relationship to those
found for the samples of women in the present study.
Initial submission: February 15, 2002
Initial acceptance: May 20, 2002
Final acceptance: August 12, 2002
NOTES
1. Of the 83 women in shelters, 54 were not included in these
analyses because they reported that they had “never” received
violence from their present partner, either because they were
reluctant to report it even on our anonymous questionnaire
(Gortner et al., 1997; Green, 1998; Martin et al., 2000; West,
Kantor, & Jasinski, 1998), or because they were in a new rela-
tionship with someone other than the partner whose violence
had sent them to the shelter.
2. A conservative approach of listwise deletion of missing data
was used for all stepwise multiple regression analyses, with
participants excluded if they failed to give information on any
of the variables considered. To preserve degrees of freedom
and statistical power (Pedhazur, 1982, p. 148), once significant
predictor variables were identified in an analysis, it was re-
peated and reported here with only significant variables in the
equation.
REFERENCES
Attala, J. M., Hudson, W. W., & McSweeney, M. (1994). A par-
tial validation of two short-form abuse scales. Women and
Health, 21, 125–139.
Barnett, O. W. (2001). Why battered women do not leave, Part
2: External inhibiting factors, social support, and internal
inhibiting factors. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 2, 3–35.
Bergman, I. (1992). Dating violence among high school students.
Social Work, 37, 21–27.
Bringle, R. G., & Bagby, G. J. (1992). Self-esteem and perceived
quality of romantic and family relationships in young adults.
Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 340–356.
Butts-Stahly, G. (1999). Women with children in violent relation-
ships: The choice of leaving may bring the consequence of
custodial challenge. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment,
and Trauma, 2, 239–251.
Campbell, J., Rose, L., Kub, J., & Nedd, D. (1998). Voices of
strength and resistance: A contextual and longitudinal anal-
ysis of women’s responses to battering. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 13, 743–762.
Campbell, R., Sullivan, C. M., & Davidson, W. S. (1995). Women
who use domestic violence shelters. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 19, 237–255.
Cascardi, M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1992). Depressive symptomatol-
ogy, self-esteem, and self-blame in battered women. Journal
of Family Violence, 7, 249–259.
Choice, P., & Lamke, L. K. (1997). A conceptual approach to un-
derstanding abused women’s stay/leave decisions. Journal
of Family Issues, 18, 290–314.
HENDY ET AL.
Coeling, H. V., & Harman, G. (1997). Learning to ask
about domestic violence. Women’s Health Issues, 7, 263–
269.
Compton, W. C., Michael, J. R., Krasavage-Hopkins, E. M.,
Schneiderman, L. S., & Bickman, L. (1989). Intentions for
postshelter living in battered women. Journal of Commu-
nity Psychology, 17, 126–128.
Daniels, J. W., & Murphy, C. M. (1997). Stages and processes of
change in batterers’ treatment. Cognitive and Behavioral
Practice, 4, 123–147.
Downs, W. R., Miller, B. A., Testa, M., & Panek, D. (1992). Long-
term effects of parent-to-child violence for women. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 365–382.
Dutton, D. G., & Painter, S. (1993). Emotional attachments in
abusive relationships: A test of traumatic bonding theory.
Violence and Victims, 8, 105–120.
Farrell, M. L. (1996). Healing: A qualitative study of women re-
covering from abusive relationships with men. Perspectives
in Psychiatric Care, 32, 23–32.
Feldman, C. M. (1997). Childhood precursors of adult interpart-
ner violence. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 4,
307–334.
Frisch, M. B., & MacKenzie, C. J. (1991). A comparison of for-
merly and chronically battered women on cognitive and
situational dimensions. Psychotherapy, 28, 339–344.
Giordano, P. C. (1998). The quality of adolescent friendships:
Long-term effects. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
39, 55–71.
Gortner, E., Berns, S. B., Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1997).
When women leave violent relationships: Dispelling clinical
myths. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 34,
343–352.
Green, R. (1998). The deadly embrace: An approach to abusive
relationships. Group Analysis, 31, 197–211.
Henderson, A. (1995). Abused women and peer-provided so-
cial support. The nature and dynamics of reciprocity in a
crisis setting. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 16, 117–
128.
Hendy, H. M., Weiner, K., Bakerofskie, J., Eggen, D., Gustitus, C.,
& McLeod, K. C. (in press). Comparison of six models for
violent romantic relationships in college men and women.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
Heyman, R. E., & Schlee, K. A. (1997). Toward a better estimate
of the prevalence of partner abuse: Adjusting rates based
on the sensitivity of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal of
Family Psychology, 11, 332–338.
Jezl, D. R., Molidor, E. C., & Wright, L. T. (1996). Physical, sexual,
and psychological abuse in high school dating relationships:
Prevalence rates and self-esteem issues. Child and Adoles-
cent Social Work, 13, 79–86.
Johnson, I. M. (1992). Economic, situational, and psychologi-
cal correlates of the decision-making process of battered
women. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary
Human Services, 23, 168–176.
Kasian, M., & Painter, S. L. (1992). Frequency and severity of
psychological abuse in a dating population. Journal of In-
terpersonal Violence, 7, 350–363.
Katz, J., Arias, I., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Psychological abuse,
self-esteem, and women’s dating relationship outcomes.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 349–357.
Kurdek, L. A. (1995). Assessing multiple determinants of rela-
tionship commitment in co-habitating gay, co-habitating
Decision to Leave
lesbian, dating heterosexual, and married heterosexual
couples. Family Relations: Journal of Applied Family and
Child Studies, 44, 261–266.
Kwong, M. J., Bartholomew, K., & Dutton, D. G. (1999). Gen-
der difference in patterns of relationship violence in Al-
berta. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 31, 150–
160.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Neidig, P., & Thorn, G. (1995). Vi-
olent marriages: Gender differences in levels of current
violence and past abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 10,
159–176.
Lerner, C. F., & Kennedy, L. T. (2000). Stay-leave decision mak-
ing in battered women: Trauma, coping, and self-efficacy.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 215–232.
Magdol, L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Newman, D. L.,
Fagan, J., & Silva, P. A. (1997). Gender differences in part-
ner violence in a birth cohort of 21-year olds: Bridging
the gap between clinical and epidemiological approaches.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 68–
78.
Martin, A. J., Berenson, K. R., Griffing, S., Sage, R. E., Madry,
L., Bingham, L. E., & Primm, B. J. (2000). The process of
leaving an abusive relationship: The role of risk assessments.
Journal of Family Violence, 15, 109–122.
Moss, V. A., Pitula, C. R., Campbell, J. C., & Halstead, L. (1997).
The experience of terminating an abusive relationship from
an Anglo and African American perspective: A qualitative
descriptive study. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 18, 433–
454.
O’Keefe, M. (1997). Predictors of dating violence among high
school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 546–
568.
Pape, K. T., & Arias, I. (2000). The role of perceptions and at-
tributions in battered women’s intentions to permanently
end their violent relationships. Cognitive Therapy and Re-
search, 24, 201–214.
Pate, A. M., & Hamilton, E. E. (1992). Formal and informal de-
terrents to domestic violence: The Dade County spouse as-
sault experiment. American Sociological Review, 57, 691–
697.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research:
Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rine-
hart, & Winston.
Peled, E., Eisikovits, Z., Enosh, G., & Winstok, Z. (2000). Choice
and empowerment for battered women who stay: Toward a
constructivist model. Social Work, 45, 9–25.
Pilkington, F. B. (2000). Persisting while wanting to change:
Women’s lived experiences. Health Care for Women In-
ternational, 21, 501–516.
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In
search of how people change. American Psychologist, 47,
1102–1114.
173
Procidano, M. E., & Heller, K. (1983). Measures of perceived
social support from friends and from family: Three valida-
tion studies. American Journal of Community Psychology,
2, 1–24.
Rosen, K. H., & Stith, S. M. (1995). Women terminating abusive
dating relationships: A qualitative study. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 12, 155–160.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rosenstock, I. M. (1990). The Health Belief Model: Explaining
health behavior through expectancies. In K. Glanz, F. M.
Lewis, & B. K. Rimer (Eds.), Health behavior and health
education (pp. 39–61). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive
relationship: An investment model analysis of non-voluntary
dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
21, 558–571.
Russell, B., & Uhlemann, M. R. (1994). Women surviving an abu-
sive relationship: Grief and the process of change. Journal
of Counseling and Development, 72, 362–367.
Sappington, A. A., Pharr, R., Tunstall, A., & Rickert, E. (1997).
Relationships among child abuse, date abuse, and psycho-
logical problems. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 319–
329.
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind
closed doors: Violence in the American family. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Strube, M. J. (1988). The decision to leave an abusive relation-
ship: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psycholog-
ical Bulletin, 104, 236–250.
Truman-Schram, D. M., Cann, A., Calhoun, L., & Vanwallendael,
L. (2000). Leaving an abusive dating relationship: An invest-
ment model comparison of women who stay versus women
who leave. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19,
161–183.
Vivian, D., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1994). Are bi-
directionally violent couples mutually victimized? A gender-
sensitive comparison. Violence and Victims, 9, 107–124.
Wayland, K., Roth, S., & Lochman, J. E. (1991). The relation
between physical assault and psychological functioning in
a sample of university women, and the relative effects of
physical and sexual assault. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 4,
495–514.
Weingourt, R. (1996). Connection and disconnection in abusive
relationships. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 32, 15–19.
West, C. M., Kantor, G. K., & Jasinski, J. L. (1998). Sociodemo-
graphic predictors and cultural barriers to help-seeking be-
havior by Latina and Anglo American battered women. Vi-
olence and Victims, 13, 361–375.
Wilson, K. J. (1997). When violence begins at home: A compre-
hensive guide to understanding and ending domestic abuse.
Alameda, CA: Hunter House.